it shows har far the religious right and gwb took our country to zealotville...
if an atheist with every qualification all three expoused ran, who answered everyone's questions, and did everything right, ran for office,
he or she would get slaughtered.
this is shameful...
Posted by anthony at April 15, 2008 01:21 PMAt least Bush has provided us with living proof that Intelligent Design is an obvious myth.
Are our taxpayer dollars paying for all this security on the Pope's visit?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 15, 2008 01:33 PMGood idea.
Someone should ask Senator Obama what the scientific definition of "when a soul stirs" is.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 01:48 PMBut hey, come on, does Albert Einstein's likeness spontaneously appear in hospital chapel windows?
My daughter told me she found one of those cheetos that look like Jesus the other day. I asked her what she did with it. She said, "I ate it before it got stale."
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 02:06 PMSo, snark, Jesus was a Cheeto? I thought he was a Jew! And you're not teaching your daughter fiscal responsibility! She should have sold the dang thing on Ebay to pay for her college.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2008 02:10 PMI can't figure out Obama. He says he believes in evolution, but wants to 'cooperate' with creationists and talks some pretty creepy jeezus talk often enough. He says he's pro-choice but likes to listen to pro-lifers too. He says he's pro-gay rights, but loves him some McClurkin and Meeks. And so on. I honestly just don't know what he believes.
But most important to me is the science issue. I sincerely hope he means it when he says he believes in evolution and global warming and good science and so on.
Posted by Anon at April 15, 2008 02:12 PMI'm a scientist who signed the ScienceDebate petition months ago, have been waiting for it eagerly (especially after the religion debate which I too refused to watch), only to hear... nothing.
I've been greatly puzzled by the lack of media interest in this. Until now. I finally get it.
The media know, in their deepest heart of hearts, beyond the tiniest smidgen of doubt, that Clinton would completely, undeniably, embarrassingly, kick McCain and Obama's asses out of the friggin' park.
Posted by Bo Gardiner at April 15, 2008 03:23 PMHe doesn't anon, his are but words without deeds. He speaks his mind in SF behind closed doors without press around. Then stands up for the words then apologizes for the words. He talks against NAFTA, then back channels that its only talk. This guy is a reed being blown in the wind.
Posted by peter at April 15, 2008 03:27 PMThe media know, in their deepest heart of hearts, beyond the tiniest smidgen of doubt, that Clinton would completely, undeniably, embarrassingly, kick McCain and Obama's asses out of the friggin' park.
"Dr. Clinton, I presume?"
Posted by Seven of Six at April 15, 2008 03:33 PMlove the idea, turkana. yes, let's have a science debate. judging from the blank look obama had at a debate when hillary was discussing new brain research, she'll likely clean his clock. i can't wait.
Posted by kangeroo at April 15, 2008 04:17 PM"So, snark, Jesus was a Cheeto? I thought he was a Jew!"
...Jesus was actually a kosher Dorito.
The science debate is a good idea.
But the constant bashing of religion by certain members of the left is counterproductive. The United States is far more religious than other Western countries. It isn't a violation of the constitution for voters to profess a preference for relgious people. It isn't "disgusting" that Clinton and Obama talk about their faith. Your comments DO denigrate religion, because, in fact, religious beliefs are important in forming character and making decisions. I could tell the difference between Carter's faith and Bush's faith when they ran, and they acted in accordance with their religious and moral visions. They prove the importance of each candidate's vision of faith, not the irrelevance of belief.
Someday the United States may be as secular as Sweden. Someday there will be less suspicion of minority religious viewpoints. But ranting against religion or the state of American culture isn't going to change anything. It will just help Democrats lose elections, today.
Posted by Kanzeon at April 15, 2008 04:48 PMConsidering how terribly the US is doing in educating children in this area, a Science Debate is an awesome idea. Science has somehow been relegated to something only for the college educated and the elite to discuss. Scientific discovery affects us all every day and should be talked about. Maybe if the general populace understood this, they'd have fewer issues with much of the scientific research that takes place.
Posted by kacey at April 15, 2008 05:26 PMkanzeon,
what people demagogue about their religious beliefs does not necessarily have anything to do with their actual beliefs. that's the problem. and the constitution does, in fact, say that there should be no religious tests, so whether or not people care about it is irrelevant. that is, if they care about the constitution. i'm not denigrating religion, i'm denigrating people who don't understand the concept of separation of church and state.
Posted by at April 15, 2008 05:38 PMThere IS no religious test for office, in any constitutional sense. If someone chooses to vote against a candidate because they are Muslim or Mormon, that's their choice, and candidates are free to talk about religion all they please. To claim this is a constitutional violation is impossibly silly.
Posted by Kanzeon at April 15, 2008 06:16 PMpeople can talk about it all they want, and if they choose not to vote for someone because of that someone's religion, they're bigots. politicians should not talk about religion, and they should not be expected to.
Posted by Turkana at April 15, 2008 06:22 PMThe constitutional prohibition on religious tests has nothing to do with an individual voters right to consider whatever factors he/she wants to when deciding for whom to vote. You are entitled to vote your conscience. If that leads you to consider someone's religion or lack there of as the deciding factor it's your right. It's not any less civicly responsible than walking into a voting booth and voting the party line by selecting all the names with a D or an R following them regardless of whether you know a damn thing about the people.
It's simple enough. If a candidate doesn't want to talk about religion they can refuse to answer. Simple as that. I wouldn't recommend it if you want to get elected to national office in this country though.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 06:57 PMi'm denigrating people who don't understand the concept of separation of church and state.
Such as yourself?
Posted by snark at April 15, 2008 07:00 PMOne reason I wouldn't vote for Bush is his religious affiliation. I suppose that makes me a bigot.
Who knew that I was violating the Constitution by voting for Gore and Kerry. Do those votes go back in Bush's column now?
Posted by Kanzeon at April 15, 2008 07:37 PMpoliticians should not talk about religion, and they should not be expected to.
Correct.
If a candidate doesn't want to talk about religion they can refuse to answer. Simple as that. I wouldn't recommend it if you want to get elected to national office in this country though.
Correct, also.
Reasonable, thinking people should not be afraid to criticize the unreasonable, dangerous religious beliefs of others. Because of our failure to speak out in these matters, we live in a country where a person who openly doubts that there is a heaven and a hell cannot be elected president. I mean, c'mon, there are no other litmus tests for the position other than that one. My wife's a hair stylist. She had to pass a licensing exam before she could work in her field. A president has the power to make war and create national policy. Very unlike my wife, a president will make decisions that will affect human life, for perhaps hundreds of years. Yet Obama, Clinton, McCain, they don't have to know anything to get their desired job. They don't have to study political science, economics, not even law. Nor foreign relations, any history of war, engineering, whatever you may think of that would seem relevant to be the leader of the strongest nation on the planet. All they have to know how to do is raise money, look and compose themselves well on tv, AND believe in a highly specific group of MYTHS. If Obama quoted extremely well from the Bible and McCain was a freaking rocket scientist who couldn't quote Bible verse from memory, I'll bet any amount of money Obama wins. If you're with me on that bet, you can have no doubt that we are allowing unreason and fairy tales to run our political system, and in turn write our laws and determine our country's direction.
Thank you for your post, Turkana. That religious debate or whatever it was should never have been allowed to happen, and it's time reasonable people were unafraid to say so loudly and clearly.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at April 15, 2008 09:25 PMHumans need their myths, Jeff. They're scared to be alone, and too lazy to create their own meaning of life, so they let some guy in a dress tell 'em what to think. And politicians need humans to have their myths, cos then, they're easier to control. Humans are very, very, stupid. I think the planet would be better off without them, myself.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2008 09:31 PMopiate of the people..but we all know what happens if you go there..generally speaking it's a religious country..some areas more then others...you pander..
Posted by dennis at April 16, 2008 07:51 AMi will say that although i was and am against having to discuss your personal thoughts on religion..that i found myself captivated and thought it was quite interesting
Posted by dennis at April 16, 2008 07:58 AMJeff,
There is no legal restriction that has prevented a Buddhist or an atheist from running for President. At one time, not so long ago, neither an African American nor a woman was legally qualified for that office.
Religious tolerance and diversity is a good thing, and I believe that tolerance will increase in the United States. But there isn't any reason to pretend that a cultural prejudice in favor of Christianity is the same as a legal restriction, or that the cultural prejudice will be more enduring than the legal restrictions.
Religion does matter in politics. Ask Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or George Bush. Hairdressers don't deal with questions of life and death or the future of the human race. Presidents do. The public rightfully wants to know who the candidates are, and what they believe about these larger moral questions.
iamcoyote,
It must be nice to have been able to figure out all the answers for yourself, despite the failure of the greatest philosophers and religious leaders to find the correct answers for everyone, and to decide that anyone who doesn't view the world as you do is stupid. Are you a fundamentalist, by chance?
Posted by Kanzeon at April 16, 2008 08:04 AMI just hate it when I have to agree with coyote and snark. Good comments and you too Jeff.
Posted by JohnT at April 16, 2008 08:24 AMKanzeon, I said nothing of religious restrictions. I'm talking reality. How many Atheists hold public office nationally? One. It's a start.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at April 16, 2008 09:05 AMIt must be nice to have been able to figure out all the answers for yourself,
This is your problem. I don't need answers, because there are no answers, though it's fun when scientists discover new things or fill in pieces of the puzzle. There are just guys in dresses saying they know the answers and guys with long beards guessing at what might be answers. But listening to some guy who thinks he's talking to ghosts tell others what's right and wrong, is, yes, to me, stupid.
But I do understand that since most people believe in ghosts to the point that some of them will continue to listen to the guys in dresses who let the guys in dresses continue to diddle their children or sell their girl-children to guys who say they talk to ghosts, politicians will need to pretend that these ghost are real, and pander to the idiots who want it to be true, because having no answers is too damn scary for them. And they deserve what they get if that's how they choose leaders, because they've abdicated their responsibility to uphold the social contract in favor of letting someone else make their decisions for them with the promise of "we respect your ghost!"
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 09:26 AMiamcoyote,
First, if there are no answers, then there are no "wrong" answers. People can believe what they want; you have no standing to criticize. Perhaps you meant no supernatural answers, which is a valid opinion, but far from a universal one among intelligent people.
Second, it seems that you, and others, uniformly assert that politicans are "pretending" to believe as part of a requirement of pandering to the rubes. That seems like mindreading to me, clearly a supernatural quality.
Third, it is incredible that you dismiss anyone who doesn't believe (or disbelieve) as you do as an "idiot." This includes inspirational leaders like MLK, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and every theistic philosopher from Agustine to Buber and beyond.
I don't practice Christianity. I do hope for more tolerance and religious diversity in America. However, intolerance and arrogance from the areligious is no better than intolerance and arrogance from the religious.
Posted by Kanzeon at April 16, 2008 11:28 AMArrogance? Sorry, but the godbots have become too dangerous to be left alone.
I'll see your open door "I don't practice Christianity", and raise you a definitive "I don't believe in God, period".
Examples of non-wrong answers:
1. Flying Pink Unicorns cause the rain.
2. The flying 'paghetti monster created Bush.
3. Fairies fuck in my foyer.
First, if there are no answers, then there are no "wrong" answers.
Ooooh, cosmic! That's what laws are for. That's what the social contract is about. You want the meaning of life, you're gonna have to make one up, or borrow one from a ghost-whisperer. It doesn't mean those are right for anyone else but the person believing, but preachers gotta make money, so it's helpful if you can get a buncha rubes together to believe the same thing and appoint the ghost-whisperer (or a self-appointed interpreter of same) as the leader and collector of buckaroonies.
People can believe what they want; you have no standing to criticize.
Why not? Only believers have rights? I can point and laugh if I want to. Sure, I'm not gonna make friends, because, as we've seen, people lose their heads when their fervent beliefs are questioned. But there's nothing stopping me from pointing and laughing. 'Course, I'm not stupid enough to do it in places where vengeful ghosts demand the blood of unbelievers. Let 'em kill off each other over their own perceived slights.
That seems like mindreading to me, clearly a supernatural quality.
Actually, it's called experience. Bush's fave philosopher is supposedly Jesus - and yet he's managed to kill off quite a few people.
Third, it is incredible that you dismiss anyone who doesn't believe (or disbelieve) as you do as an "idiot." This includes inspirational leaders...
Too bad such smart people need the built-in audience a "spiritual leader" is afforded. Maybe then they could take full credit for the intellectual capacity they were born with. Still, they're the reason people are deluded with the idea that morality is impossible without a belief in some kinda sky fairy who dribbles magical inspiration on the masses so they won't be quite so pissed off that the rich have everything and they have nothing.
However, intolerance and arrogance from the areligious is no better than intolerance and arrogance from the religious.
So, you think all the killing over the millenia by religion is equal to a point and a laugh? Some moral weathervane you are! At least the non-believers don't try to convert people at gunpoint, or keep their women barefoot and preggie, or proclaim all women born of sin, or kill others who don't believe quite the same way as they do. I'll take a point and laugh any day over a beheading, a burka, acid in the face for not wearing a scarf, rampant pedophilia coverups, war on Xmas, war on Islam, war on Women, panty sniffing hypocrisy, etc.
I was a born-again xtian once, after I married one. And I travelled all over the country with my xtian military hubby, who, as a devout believer had no problem with adultery, abandonment and abuse. (thank goodness, because the guilt was what made him pay child support). I learned the the most fervent bible thumpers were the least likely to do what their religion said, right down to beating their wives, fucking their children, killing, lying, cheating. Only once, maybe twice in all that time did I meet self-proclaimed born agains who actually did what their prophet told them to do. The rest were counting on that convenient "forgiveness" loophole. Sure, religion helps people like addicts who need some other drug to keep them off the junk, but with the volume of lives ruined by "believers" doesn't really make the whole concept worthwhile.
TIKI, you know damn well those flying unicorns are purple!
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 01:46 PMIt must be truly frightening to live in a world where seventy or eighty percent of the population are "dangerous" "godbots" that you must confront and vanquish and only you are smart enough to know the way of reason and compassion. If either you need a medical referral, let me know. Take care of yourselves.
Posted by Kanzeon at April 16, 2008 04:42 PMNah, only a few, including the ones that manage to get in power, are the truly dangerous. The rest, who vote them into power because they pretend to be religious, are their enablers. I have no problem with believers until they fall for a dangerous person just because he says he's a true believer. Their need for validation of their beliefs (since their only "proof" of the unprovable is other people believing) is what gets us eras like the last 8 years of "hell" in the US. And that's why I think they're idiots.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 05:04 PMBut it is amusing that you think people who worship some schizophrenic named Jesus who talked to god 2000 years ago are fine, but unbelievers need "medical referrals."
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 05:09 PMI'm waiting for universl health care, but thanks anyway. Was the time with your mental health professional helpful?
Some people with common sense believe only in things that can be proven. Bizarre concept, hey?
If Christains who think they have all the answers were born in Baghdad, they would be Muslims who think they have all the answers, etc, etc, etc.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 16, 2008 06:55 PMiamcoyote,
If you were a rationalist, you wouldn't have such a need to be dishonest.
I didn't say that unbelievers need medical referrals. I didn't opine on the mental health of Jesus.
What I did say was that any person - whether it be fundamentalist, atheist, Satanist - who (seriously) places one in a position of claiming that the vast majority of the population is brainwashed, inhabited by demons (many atheists substitute the old belief in the devil with an unscientific "god meme" which robs people of reason and free will) and dangerous is probably displaying signs of mental illness. At the very least, such a person is a bigot, and not worth taking seriously.
Take care.
Posted by Kanzeon at April 17, 2008 08:03 AM